Boots & Badges
Letterwerks Sign City
"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Saturday, December 3rd, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞

Logic of the left: Examining the mindset of ultra liberals

By Jeff Erding

Fri, May 9th, 2014
Posted in All Commentary

“Only in America would people who want to balance the federal budget and follow the Constitution be demonized and labeled as “radicals” and “conservative wing-nuts!” “Quote from my friend Kerry, a businessman from British Columbia, Canada.

Recent articles by syndicated columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer have made note of a fairly recent phenomenon in America: If someone expresses an opinion or position in opposition to the left wing agenda, no attempt is made to engage them in a debate based on facts or reason. The new tactic is to simply demonize them and their ideas by immediately attaching a negative label. If the topic is abortion, the pro-lifers are “ANTI WOMENS RIGHTS”. For supporters of traditional marriage, the label is “ANTI-GAY” or “HOMO-PHOBE”. If someone does not buy into human caused climate change [the new term since Global Warming has been disproven] they are ostracized as a “DENIER”. If one dares criticize President Obama or Attorney General Holder, you are branded “RACIST”. Unless, of course, you are a person of color, in which case you fall into the “RADICAL” or “WINGNUT” category or maybe both.

That is why I’m so appreciative of the commentary by Luann Wilcox, in the April 21 Fillmore County Journal. In my most recent commentary, I pointed out the premise of Agenda 21 that private property is bad and the ownership of resources by individuals should be abolished and remanded to total government control. [Agenda 21 is full of nice ideas if you don’t care about liberty and personal freedom!] I went on to document the folly of the Green Energy policy that has gutted the economy of the European Union, whose members are now so weakened by the enormous cost of energy and their dependence on foreign oil they are powerless to resist Russian depredations in the Baltic region. I quoted some respected authorities who are experts on carbon emissions and climate and listed facts and figures with sources. Ms. Wilcox did not dispute any of the scientific facts and figures or list any alternative data. So what criteria was applied to criticize my article minus any facts or figures to the contrary?

She said I “yelled at the readers” by using capital letters for emphasis. I used the words “radical” and “secular”. She labeled my premise of the destruction of liberty and private ownership of personal property by Agenda 21 as “blatantly false”, but she doesn’t explain why she thinks so. Indeed she cannot, because Agenda 21 clearly requires government ownership of all resources. She accused me of “name calling”, though I did nothing of the sort. In short, because I espouse conservative views and oppose the agenda of the far left, I am not a civil or welcoming person and have discouraged her brother from moving to an area infested with radical conservatives prone to rabid, anti-liberal rants in the local paper.

Sorry about that.

So where is the radical left on a number of issues of local concern? Cover ups and lies by the executive branch? Nixon was forced from office for lying on a far smaller scale and rightfully so. But hold Mr. Obama accountable? No way! Despite overwhelming evidence of distortions and dishonesty, Ultra Liberals give him a complete pass. Wolf hunting? Radical Lefties are in complete opposition to killing any wolves despite the fact that people, moose, and the wolves themselves will ultimately benefit from controlled hunting in Minnesota. Construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which has passed every single environmental assessment and would be of tremendous benefit to American citizens? Radical Greenies oppose it on an emotional level even though there is no logical reason for that opposition.

Where is the radical left on quarrying and mining, in particular mining and transporting so called Frac Sand, which by the way has been quarried and used for 150 years in this region without fanfare? Instead of applying normal and sensible rules to safeguard our streams, roads, and the health of the populace, they insist NIMBY!!! (Not In My Backyard). They whip up opposition beyond all reason and logic and seek to categorically deny the people that own the sand the right to market it at a profit. Should rules exist to protect adjacent neighbors and landowners from adverse effects? Certainly! All use of our precious natural resources, especially our soil and water, should be subject to systems and procedures that are cognitive of good stewardship. Transportation of products must always include safeguards for the health of citizens. But should the radical ideology of Agenda 21 prevent those who have labored for years to buy land or build a business the right to profit from their labor without due process? I think not!

How about private gun ownership and “conceal and carry” laws? The ultra-left, with leadership from George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emmanuel and Barack Obama, tried to convince the public there would be dire consequences wherever conceal and carry laws were enacted. They predicted murder and mayhem the likes of which had not been seen since the days of the Old West! To date, 40 states have enacted laws that enable law abiding citizens the right to carry pistols for personal protection, and there have been dire consequences…for criminals! To the best of my knowledge, there has not been one licensed permit holder convicted of a gun related crime, despite the fact that tens of thousands of law abiding citizens now carry on a regular basis. Though those on the far left will never admit the correlation, crime rates have dropped dramatically everywhere gun rights for law abiding citizens have been expanded. Has anyone heard the Radical Lefties say, “Whoops. Guess we were wrong on that one.” Nope. And you never will, either.

In closing, I apologize if I have offended anyone when I write articles filled with facts and figures that don’t fit the narrative of the radical left. My purpose is not to offend but to inform. If any individual wishes to engage in a fair discussion based on facts devoid of spin and emotion, I welcome the opportunity. If, however, someone is offended by a narrative that supports traditional family values, the Bill of Rights, our Constitution, honesty from our public and elected officials, and common sense energy and conservation policies, I strongly suggest you skip the articles written by me. I will not be intimidated into writing politically correct submissions just because people on the far left can’t stand to read the truth.


Your comment submission is also an acknowledgement that this information may be reprinted in other formats such as the newspaper.


9:58:39, May 18th 2014

Daniel says:
Mr. Erding writes:

"In closing, I apologize if I have offended anyone when I write articles filled with facts and figures that don’t fit the narrative of the radical left."

This is the classic non-apology politicians use when they've said a little too much.

As a person who is neither a member Mr. Erding's "Radical Left" nor the violent right wing, I find his weekly articles and letters a bit too much... even offensive.

Doesn't the Fillmore County Journal have anything else they can print?

Foods Weekly Ads
Studio A Photography